Emily Malone Hello! I'm excited to be starting my master's of education degree this quarter; I've been putting it off for a few years, citing my "newbie" status as a teacher as the primary excuse. I graduated from UC three years ago from CECH and have been teaching at Glen Este Middle School ever since. I've taught math and language arts in 8th grade but this year am teaching 7th grade. My department colleagues and I are excited about making math relevant and exciting this year by bringing in professionals and diverse role models living in Cincinnati to present and interact with our students. We plan on having a diversity fair to expose the kids to various cultures' foods, holidays, "math tricks," and languages. Also we hope to have guest speakers every month who work in various careers including nursing, police work, and professional cooking. I love teaching and am always trying to learn; hopefully this class challenges me! Something I can offer to other students in this class is my experience with Notebook and Smart Response software for SMARTBoards. My classroom got a board last year and I have learned a lot in that time.
Maybe I'm a bad person, but I've always it would be funny if a person raised a baby by teaching him the wrong things. As a parent, I would have control over what information got passed on to my child, so what's stopping me from pointing to an apple and saying, "Blue."? Would he question me if I handed him a sheet of sandpaper and said, "Soft."? As each human's first instructors, parents have the power to transmit information, which, according to Jonassen (1991), is the explicit goal of IST. It is up to parents and later in a child's life, teachers, coaches, and mentors, to decide on a way of facilitating that child's learning. Will each person's method be an objectivist, "Here is what the world is; don't question it." type of teaching, or will it be more of a constructivist, "Why do you suppose this is the way things are?" kind of learning experience? The controversy that both Jonassen (1991) and Cronjé (2006) address is whether one, both, or an integration of both styles is effective.
Simply because it was a shorter article, I chose to read Jonassen's writing first. I'm glad I did because he is a clear, concise author with excellent flow and supported his thesis with well-planned organization. I learned that instructional designers are attempting to make learning less complicated and easier to achieve but that in doing so "IST may be short-circuiting relevant mental processing" (Jonassen 1991). Whether instruction is behaviorally or constructively designed, Jonassen still points out that the "explicit goal of IST is more efficient 'knowledge transmission'" (1991). I found myself agreeing with him that objectivism and constructivism can be "generally described as polar extremes on a continuum" where they are unable to ever meet up. It makes sense that these would be place on a continuum as such since on the surface they are so different from one another. Whereas reality is "external to the knower" in objectivism, in constructivism it is "determined by the knower" (1991). For example, if a teacher wants her students to know that two plus two is four, she will either tell them so or she will put blocks on their desks and let them find out for themselves. These are two completely different strategies. What Jonassen implies however, is that there is a way to sort of meet in the middle of the two philosophies and combine parts of each when designing or facilitating a lesson. I even nodded my head at his final declaration: "When asked to commit to either the objectivistic or constructivistic camp, the designer will be best served by replying that it depends upon the context" (1991). In other words, depending on the situation, an instructional designer can pick and choose aspects of or even entire philosophies of either method.
Then I read Cronjé's piece. I was stunned that I didn't think of the right-angled model that blends the two methods. It is brilliant. According to Cronjé, the continuum that was referred to in Jonassen's article "is of limited utility because it does not make allowance for the complexities inherent in what is being described" (2006). An instructional designer who considered the continuum as his map and wanted to stay towards the middle would be stuck there and, according to Cronjé, "use very little from either side" (2006). Just as Janet use the four quadrants in our first-class activity to show the level of educational use and technology in objects, there is no exact spot in Cronjé's model to place every lesson. Just because an object in class had a low technology rating did not necessarily mean that it was of low use educationally and therefore something that is of high technology could be irrelevant in a certain learning environment. Instead of pitching the two philosophies of objectivism and constructivism against each other, it is best to apply bits and pieces of each to fit a lesson's individual goals.
It is my conclusion that, like everything, context matters, and should be considered on a lesson-by-lesson basis when designing instruction, but that no matter what the situation, pieces from each philosophy may be relevant and even necessary to make it effective. What's great about learning is that it is ongoing, so even if I test out my evil objectivist plan on my future baby by telling it that an apple is blue, he or she will have the privelege of constructing the knowledge that I was crazy, and that in fact apples are red.
References Cronjé, J. (2006). Paradigms regained: Toward integrating objectivism and constructivism in instructional design and the learning sciences. Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 54(4), 387-416.
Jonassen, J. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5-14.
Questions:
- Is inquiry learning a perfect example of constructivism?
-With such a push for clear lesson objectives and learning goals with assessments like standardized testing, does constructivism stand a chance in the "real world" of teaching middle school?
Reflection 2
I am a selfish, thoughtless teacher. It has never occurred to me that my classroom computer (which is facing away from the students and inside my protected "space") should be used as a classroom resource. Many times I curse the fact that the 7th grade only has one laptop cart and it's always reserved, but did not stop to be thankful for the one computer that is consistently present in our room. I was surprised in reading both articles by the seemingly accepted norm that if there is a computer in the classroom, it is for everybody's use.
The analogy of kids waiting in line for a drinking fountain was an effective one in comparing waiting to use the one computer. It brought back a flashback of a middle school language arts class where we all were finished with our rough drafts of a narrative, but simply had to wait until each person finished typing his or her story. Being that I was the top keyboarding student at the time and could out-type any one of those kids made it all the more frustrating. It was then and would be now an ineffective use of instructional time. According to the NETS, teachers are supposed to be facilitators of student learning and creativity through the use of technology, not babysitters of twenty-nine bored kids who just want their turn on the computer. How can students follow their own NETS indicator of interacting, collaborating, and publishing with peers through digital environments if there is only one computer where group members rotate in one at a time?
The solutions offered in both articles are, for the most part, realistic and favorable. When working on a project that requires a percentage of internet research, students should be placed in information stations that they may cycle through where one includes the coveted computer. That way, all kids are engaged at all times. I found myself thinking up a challenge for not only myself but my colleagues at school as well: Come up with a project in math that has enough components to be able to have four or five stations that students would work through. It could be difficult, but far from impossible.
A solution presented in both articles that frankly made me laugh out loud was to have students scan headers and skim pages to locate potential information sources, then simply press "print" and return to their desks to investigate further. It's not a bad idea in itself; I am one of those people mentioned who prefer reading from a physical page rather than from a screen. The problem lies again with funding. My school's secretary, who is in charge of ordering supplies and staying within spending budgets, would scold me for even asking for more toner or paper simply because I'm conducting a large project. She'd say, "Have them take notes on paper," or "Can't you ask another teacher if her computer is available?"(which was another solution offered). Logistics and realities are difficult to face when it comes to ideas and inspiration in teaching, but unfortunately they have to be dealt with sometime.
When it comes down to it, the best idea presented was to PLAN. As with everything we teachers come up with, if we don't consider who will do what and when, the goal of the activity, possible behavior issues, and of course, possible technology roadblocks, we could be facing disaster. The more time that goes into planning and preparing an activity utilizing only one computer, the more smoothly things will go. My biggest obstacle in transitioning to this type of class will be letting go of "my" computer and letting the grubby-handed, I mean sweet-faced children, take over.
Questions: -Both articles mentioned using a projector or some sort of screen enlarger. Without the access to an actual projector, what are the other options? Is there a way to hook a computer up to a TV? - Yes - JZ -Scrounging is an effective way of getting things, but where would a teacher begin to look for "old" computers with just the basic functioning? The tech department of the district? Ask the administrators for their hand-me-down laptops? - Companies recycle their computers every 3 years or so; try P&G for example. - JZ
Reflection 4
Growing up with the world wide web has been an interesting aspect of my life. Luckily the school district I attended had more than adequate technology funding, or else it would have all passed me by. I remember being in awe over such early programs as Prodigy and CompuServe where I could read news, find out about weather, and play games without the assistance of a television or Nintendo Game System. Even from the beginning I was aching to share the experience. My friend Andrew had a computer and knew more about the internet; he told me that you could "chat" with people from all over the country. I was enamored and had to try. Thus began my teenage obsession with Aol chat rooms, instant messaging, and later, myspace "friend" building, and, of course, Facebook.
Even as an internet "native," I still hesitate to allow my 7th graders access to the good old world wide web. It's a huge, scary, dangerous, sometimes creepy, virtual world where control and protection are hard to come by. I completely related to Ikpeze and Boyd (2007) when they mentioned more than once that an issue of any webquester is "navigational disorientation and information overload" (pg. 653). I experience those troubles myself even with 17 years of surfing under my belt. The fact is that there is too much information, whether it be fact or opinion, presented in too disorganized of a way to make much sense unless a disciplined focus is kept in check along with the goal of the session always in mind.
This is where we as teachers come in. The internet is not going away and we have a responsibility to teach our students how to use it effectively and meaninfully. They will use it anyway, so why not help them make the most of it? The first four NETS for students apply to WebQuests, blogging, and community discussion boards activities. Not only does the student need to be creative and generative in working through online inquiry, he also requires the collaboration with and assistance from other students. The goal of discussion boards and blogging projects has become a reliance on others' knowledge and the synthesis of multiple ideas and information into a product. Wang and Hsua (2008) note that blogs "can be an ideal forum for social constructivist learning" (pg. 81). This means that face-to-face discussions and paper-based projects among students are not the end-all of group work.
What is imperitave for students to achieve the indicators of the research and information fluency standards is teacher organization and excellent guidance. As mentioned in the web-based inquiry article, sometimes it is helpful or even necessary to incorporate computer and internet skills lessons either before or throughout an online project. Because there are too many possibilities for technical issues and even failure, it is helpful and confidence-building to equip students with troubleshooting tools and techniques that will make the internet use easy.
The push for both rigor and relevance by administrators in our school systems does not have to be met with eye rolling anymore. I see nothing more relevant to the 21st century learner than web-based activities, research, discussions, sharing, and discovery. If I was given the opportunity as a student to use the internet in a time where sharing communities, public input, and peer to peer learning weren't even developed yet, why should I deprive my students of discovering what is still yet to come?
Questions:
-What can we do as teachers to make a blogging/discussion board experience more enriching to students other than providing a safe place to write their opinions on a topic? What makes it a better "assignment" than writing reflections on paper and trading them with each other for reading? -Modeling critical thinking and problem solving is important in teaching students to utilize the information on the internet for a specific purpose. How can we observe students' behavior and decide that they are doing those things effectively or not?
Reflection 6 Unfortunately for some of my older or less "tech savvy" colleagues, the push for integrating technology in the classroom is not going to go away. Even I as a digital native am overwhelmed with the sense of responsibility I get when considering what students need to know technology wise. As their teacher I need to expose them to rigorous and relevant instruction that utilizes technology that they might not have the privilege of experiencing on their own. If I don't do that, they will continue onto higher grades at a disadvantage. If their teachers in subsequent grades fail this responsibility as well, then those students enter college and/or the work force severely lacking in the skills and experiences they need to do well and go far.
It's interesting that technology is constantly evolving and becoming more and more a part of our daily lives. An example that Banister points out is that in the time since writing her report, "more than 60,000 Web applications have been created, with about 300 being added each day" (pg. 129). She calls the uses of iPad in the classroom sketchy, but next year hundreds of schools could be using it and we'll be speculating about another new tool. The 21st century lifestyle of technology and more technology is not going to slow down.
A challenge for many of my colleagues and myself is the development of effective and realistic lessons that utilize technology in a constructivist way. I laughed when I read the research article about teachers using interactive whiteboards because many teachers in my building use them as glorified chalkboards. They are interested in doing "cool" things with them, but they end up only showing PowerPoint presentations or displaying notes typed up on Microsoft Word. They shouldn't be completely blamed though, because as the authors explained, "when faced with a new technology a teacher is likely to make sense of it in terms of previous experiences of older technologies" (pg. 456). Especially for older teachers, when all you have known are chalk/dry erase boards and overhead projectors, a brand new system like an IWB is foreign and overwhelming.
Still, it is our responsibility as teachers to learn. I agree with the authors' concluding remarks when they state, "the introduction of IWBs into the classroom involves much more than the installation of the board and software" (466). This leads into the troubles, or "vices" as Banister calls them of actually finding the funding and time to procure technologies and train teachers how to use them. Because of the lack of direction from above (administration, government, etc.), we teachers need to experiment and collaborate to develop effective strategies on our own. The NETS for teachers as well as for students emphasize the importance of creativity, innovation, and digital citizenship, which includes having a positive attitude toward using technology collaboratively and productively. It is not fair to limit ourselves as educators who should be dedicated to lifelong learning, nor to our students, who have no way of knowing what will be expected of them in the future, to ignore or dumb down the technologies developing every minute that could take teaching and learning to another whole level.
Questions: -If a school district doesn't offer training for developing strategies to use with interactive whiteboards but expects "impressive" use in the classroom, where else could teachers turn for practical and useful ideas for better lessons? -The Banister article mentions many ideas for apps in science, language arts, and social studies, but offers only a couple of ideas for math. The ones it does mention are for elementary and higher math respectively. As a middle grades math teacher I feel that I'm always left in the dust when it comes to math apps; what can I personally do to inlude more level-appropriate math practice when utilizing iPod touches or an iPad?
Reflection 7 Virtual reality and computer simulations seem related to, as Strangman and Hall point out, science fiction and "futuristic" type of stuff. My ideas are obviously limited, as I picture virtual reality involving two kids on a couch playing space games with huge helmets and shiny glasses on. Reading the articles made me realize that things have evolved a bit from that.
I read the Baker article first and was skeptical about using this type of technology in my classroom because of the nature of Second Life. It is very "Facebook-like" in terms of the social networking and interaction. Facebook is still banned in most schools for a reason; the regulation of its use is very limited. Honestly, the first time I heard of Second Life was in college when an old boss of mine described how he "met" women on the site and how it was great because they didn't know that he was 56 years old and (his words) unattractive. It creeped me out, so picturing my twelve-year-old students interacting with those types of people on this site makes me a little reluctant to sign up, and that sentiment was mentioned later on in the article. Safety measures and online common sense have to be explicitly taught, especially to younger people. For higher education however, I think this could be quite useful, as described in the article. Online classes do lose the personal touch because not only are people not usually online at the same time, but there is no real conversation that takes place. Discussion boards and email conversations are not the same as a live chat with a visual like avatars. The description was not extremely thorough, so I don't know if there are ways of staying private without having to pay for "land" in the Second Life simulation. If not, I would not use it.
Virtual reality and simulations make much more sense to me as a math teacher. Having a meaningful visual can be of valuable assistance in the learning process. As Strangman and Hall mentioned, students were better at solving geometry problems "that required visualization than were peers taught geometry by verbal explanation" (pg. 4). Even though paper objects are more tangible than images on a computer screen, teachers should consider the learner's background. Much, if not most, of what my seventh graders understand about the world was presented to them through a television, computer screen, laptop, tablet, etc. It makes sense that a 3D simulation on a computer would be recognizable and easily understood by these digital natives. I only wish that there were more general programs that focused on a range of skills rather than individual topics of study.
Questions:
-If a school did subscribe to a program like Second Life, how would a teacher be able to regulate use and keep her students out of harm's way?
-Why does there not seem to be a big gap in science and math achievement between girls and boys when impacted by computer simulations as there is when not?
Hello! I'm excited to be starting my master's of education degree this quarter; I've been putting it off for a few years, citing my "newbie" status as a teacher as the primary excuse. I graduated from UC three years ago from CECH and have been teaching at Glen Este Middle School ever since. I've taught math and language arts in 8th grade but this year am teaching 7th grade.
My department colleagues and I are excited about making math relevant and exciting this year by bringing in professionals and diverse role models living in Cincinnati to present and interact with our students. We plan on having a diversity fair to expose the kids to various cultures' foods, holidays, "math tricks," and languages. Also we hope to have guest speakers every month who work in various careers including nursing, police work, and professional cooking.
I love teaching and am always trying to learn; hopefully this class challenges me!
Something I can offer to other students in this class is my experience with Notebook and Smart Response software for SMARTBoards. My classroom got a board last year and I have learned a lot in that time.
Favorite math websites:
NCTM games Arcademic Skillbuilders Funbrain
Reflection 1
Maybe I'm a bad person, but I've always it would be funny if a person raised a baby by teaching him the wrong things. As a parent, I would have control over what information got passed on to my child, so what's stopping me from pointing to an apple and saying, "Blue."? Would he question me if I handed him a sheet of sandpaper and said, "Soft."? As each human's first instructors, parents have the power to transmit information, which, according to Jonassen (1991), is the explicit goal of IST. It is up to parents and later in a child's life, teachers, coaches, and mentors, to decide on a way of facilitating that child's learning. Will each person's method be an objectivist, "Here is what the world is; don't question it." type of teaching, or will it be more of a constructivist, "Why do you suppose this is the way things are?" kind of learning experience? The controversy that both Jonassen (1991) and Cronjé (2006) address is whether one, both, or an integration of both styles is effective.
Simply because it was a shorter article, I chose to read Jonassen's writing first. I'm glad I did because he is a clear, concise author with excellent flow and supported his thesis with well-planned organization. I learned that instructional designers are attempting to make learning less complicated and easier to achieve but that in doing so "IST may be short-circuiting relevant mental processing" (Jonassen 1991). Whether instruction is behaviorally or constructively designed, Jonassen still points out that the "explicit goal of IST is more efficient 'knowledge transmission'" (1991). I found myself agreeing with him that objectivism and constructivism can be "generally described as polar extremes on a continuum" where they are unable to ever meet up. It makes sense that these would be place on a continuum as such since on the surface they are so different from one another. Whereas reality is "external to the knower" in objectivism, in constructivism it is "determined by the knower" (1991). For example, if a teacher wants her students to know that two plus two is four, she will either tell them so or she will put blocks on their desks and let them find out for themselves. These are two completely different strategies. What Jonassen implies however, is that there is a way to sort of meet in the middle of the two philosophies and combine parts of each when designing or facilitating a lesson. I even nodded my head at his final declaration: "When asked to commit to either the objectivistic or constructivistic camp, the designer will be best served by replying that it depends upon the context" (1991). In other words, depending on the situation, an instructional designer can pick and choose aspects of or even entire philosophies of either method.
Then I read Cronjé's piece. I was stunned that I didn't think of the right-angled model that blends the two methods. It is brilliant. According to Cronjé, the continuum that was referred to in Jonassen's article "is of limited utility because it does not make allowance for the complexities inherent in what is being described" (2006). An instructional designer who considered the continuum as his map and wanted to stay towards the middle would be stuck there and, according to Cronjé, "use very little from either side" (2006). Just as Janet use the four quadrants in our first-class activity to show the level of educational use and technology in objects, there is no exact spot in Cronjé's model to place every lesson. Just because an object in class had a low technology rating did not necessarily mean that it was of low use educationally and therefore something that is of high technology could be irrelevant in a certain learning environment. Instead of pitching the two philosophies of objectivism and constructivism against each other, it is best to apply bits and pieces of each to fit a lesson's individual goals.
It is my conclusion that, like everything, context matters, and should be considered on a lesson-by-lesson basis when designing instruction, but that no matter what the situation, pieces from each philosophy may be relevant and even necessary to make it effective. What's great about learning is that it is ongoing, so even if I test out my evil objectivist plan on my future baby by telling it that an apple is blue, he or she will have the privelege of constructing the knowledge that I was crazy, and that in fact apples are red.
References
Cronjé, J. (2006). Paradigms regained: Toward integrating objectivism and constructivism in instructional design and the learning
sciences. Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 54(4), 387-416.
Jonassen, J. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology
Research and Development, 39(3), 5-14.
Questions:
- Is inquiry learning a perfect example of constructivism?
-With such a push for clear lesson objectives and learning goals with assessments like standardized testing, does constructivism stand a chance in the "real world" of teaching middle school?
Reflection 2
I am a selfish, thoughtless teacher. It has never occurred to me that my classroom computer (which is facing away from the students and inside my protected "space") should be used as a classroom resource. Many times I curse the fact that the 7th grade only has one laptop cart and it's always reserved, but did not stop to be thankful for the one computer that is consistently present in our room. I was surprised in reading both articles by the seemingly accepted norm that if there is a computer in the classroom, it is for everybody's use.
The analogy of kids waiting in line for a drinking fountain was an effective one in comparing waiting to use the one computer. It brought back a flashback of a middle school language arts class where we all were finished with our rough drafts of a narrative, but simply had to wait until each person finished typing his or her story. Being that I was the top keyboarding student at the time and could out-type any one of those kids made it all the more frustrating. It was then and would be now an ineffective use of instructional time. According to the NETS, teachers are supposed to be facilitators of student learning and creativity through the use of technology, not babysitters of twenty-nine bored kids who just want their turn on the computer. How can students follow their own NETS indicator of interacting, collaborating, and publishing with peers through digital environments if there is only one computer where group members rotate in one at a time?
The solutions offered in both articles are, for the most part, realistic and favorable. When working on a project that requires a percentage of internet research, students should be placed in information stations that they may cycle through where one includes the coveted computer. That way, all kids are engaged at all times. I found myself thinking up a challenge for not only myself but my colleagues at school as well: Come up with a project in math that has enough components to be able to have four or five stations that students would work through. It could be difficult, but far from impossible.
A solution presented in both articles that frankly made me laugh out loud was to have students scan headers and skim pages to locate potential information sources, then simply press "print" and return to their desks to investigate further. It's not a bad idea in itself; I am one of those people mentioned who prefer reading from a physical page rather than from a screen. The problem lies again with funding. My school's secretary, who is in charge of ordering supplies and staying within spending budgets, would scold me for even asking for more toner or paper simply because I'm conducting a large project. She'd say, "Have them take notes on paper," or "Can't you ask another teacher if her computer is available?"(which was another solution offered). Logistics and realities are difficult to face when it comes to ideas and inspiration in teaching, but unfortunately they have to be dealt with sometime.
When it comes down to it, the best idea presented was to PLAN. As with everything we teachers come up with, if we don't consider who will do what and when, the goal of the activity, possible behavior issues, and of course, possible technology roadblocks, we could be facing disaster. The more time that goes into planning and preparing an activity utilizing only one computer, the more smoothly things will go. My biggest obstacle in transitioning to this type of class will be letting go of "my" computer and letting the grubby-handed, I mean sweet-faced children, take over.
Questions:
-Both articles mentioned using a projector or some sort of screen enlarger. Without the access to an actual projector, what are the other options? Is there a way to hook a computer up to a TV? - Yes - JZ
-Scrounging is an effective way of getting things, but where would a teacher begin to look for "old" computers with just the basic functioning? The tech department of the district? Ask the administrators for their hand-me-down laptops? - Companies recycle their computers every 3 years or so; try P&G for example. - JZ
Reflection 4
Growing up with the world wide web has been an interesting aspect of my life. Luckily the school district I attended had more than adequate technology funding, or else it would have all passed me by. I remember being in awe over such early programs as Prodigy and CompuServe where I could read news, find out about weather, and play games without the assistance of a television or Nintendo Game System. Even from the beginning I was aching to share the experience. My friend Andrew had a computer and knew more about the internet; he told me that you could "chat" with people from all over the country. I was enamored and had to try. Thus began my teenage obsession with Aol chat rooms, instant messaging, and later, myspace "friend" building, and, of course, Facebook.
Even as an internet "native," I still hesitate to allow my 7th graders access to the good old world wide web. It's a huge, scary, dangerous, sometimes creepy, virtual world where control and protection are hard to come by. I completely related to Ikpeze and Boyd (2007) when they mentioned more than once that an issue of any webquester is "navigational disorientation and information overload" (pg. 653). I experience those troubles myself even with 17 years of surfing under my belt. The fact is that there is too much information, whether it be fact or opinion, presented in too disorganized of a way to make much sense unless a disciplined focus is kept in check along with the goal of the session always in mind.
This is where we as teachers come in. The internet is not going away and we have a responsibility to teach our students how to use it effectively and meaninfully. They will use it anyway, so why not help them make the most of it? The first four NETS for students apply to WebQuests, blogging, and community discussion boards activities. Not only does the student need to be creative and generative in working through online inquiry, he also requires the collaboration with and assistance from other students. The goal of discussion boards and blogging projects has become a reliance on others' knowledge and the synthesis of multiple ideas and information into a product. Wang and Hsua (2008) note that blogs "can be an ideal forum for social constructivist learning" (pg. 81). This means that face-to-face discussions and paper-based projects among students are not the end-all of group work.
What is imperitave for students to achieve the indicators of the research and information fluency standards is teacher organization and excellent guidance. As mentioned in the web-based inquiry article, sometimes it is helpful or even necessary to incorporate computer and internet skills lessons either before or throughout an online project. Because there are too many possibilities for technical issues and even failure, it is helpful and confidence-building to equip students with troubleshooting tools and techniques that will make the internet use easy.
The push for both rigor and relevance by administrators in our school systems does not have to be met with eye rolling anymore. I see nothing more relevant to the 21st century learner than web-based activities, research, discussions, sharing, and discovery. If I was given the opportunity as a student to use the internet in a time where sharing communities, public input, and peer to peer learning weren't even developed yet, why should I deprive my students of discovering what is still yet to come?
Questions:
-What can we do as teachers to make a blogging/discussion board experience more enriching to students other than providing a safe place to write their opinions on a topic? What makes it a better "assignment" than writing reflections on paper and trading them with each other for reading?
-Modeling critical thinking and problem solving is important in teaching students to utilize the information on the internet for a specific purpose. How can we observe students' behavior and decide that they are doing those things effectively or not?
Reflection 6
Unfortunately for some of my older or less "tech savvy" colleagues, the push for integrating technology in the classroom is not going to go away. Even I as a digital native am overwhelmed with the sense of responsibility I get when considering what students need to know technology wise. As their teacher I need to expose them to rigorous and relevant instruction that utilizes technology that they might not have the privilege of experiencing on their own. If I don't do that, they will continue onto higher grades at a disadvantage. If their teachers in subsequent grades fail this responsibility as well, then those students enter college and/or the work force severely lacking in the skills and experiences they need to do well and go far.
It's interesting that technology is constantly evolving and becoming more and more a part of our daily lives. An example that Banister points out is that in the time since writing her report, "more than 60,000 Web applications have been created, with about 300 being added each day" (pg. 129). She calls the uses of iPad in the classroom sketchy, but next year hundreds of schools could be using it and we'll be speculating about another new tool. The 21st century lifestyle of technology and more technology is not going to slow down.
A challenge for many of my colleagues and myself is the development of effective and realistic lessons that utilize technology in a constructivist way. I laughed when I read the research article about teachers using interactive whiteboards because many teachers in my building use them as glorified chalkboards. They are interested in doing "cool" things with them, but they end up only showing PowerPoint presentations or displaying notes typed up on Microsoft Word. They shouldn't be completely blamed though, because as the authors explained, "when faced with a new technology a teacher is likely to make sense of it in terms of previous experiences of older technologies" (pg. 456). Especially for older teachers, when all you have known are chalk/dry erase boards and overhead projectors, a brand new system like an IWB is foreign and overwhelming.
Still, it is our responsibility as teachers to learn. I agree with the authors' concluding remarks when they state, "the introduction of IWBs into the classroom involves much more than the installation of the board and software" (466). This leads into the troubles, or "vices" as Banister calls them of actually finding the funding and time to procure technologies and train teachers how to use them. Because of the lack of direction from above (administration, government, etc.), we teachers need to experiment and collaborate to develop effective strategies on our own. The NETS for teachers as well as for students emphasize the importance of creativity, innovation, and digital citizenship, which includes having a positive attitude toward using technology collaboratively and productively. It is not fair to limit ourselves as educators who should be dedicated to lifelong learning, nor to our students, who have no way of knowing what will be expected of them in the future, to ignore or dumb down the technologies developing every minute that could take teaching and learning to another whole level.
Questions:
-If a school district doesn't offer training for developing strategies to use with interactive whiteboards but expects "impressive" use in the classroom, where else could teachers turn for practical and useful ideas for better lessons?
-The Banister article mentions many ideas for apps in science, language arts, and social studies, but offers only a couple of ideas for math. The ones it does mention are for elementary and higher math respectively. As a middle grades math teacher I feel that I'm always left in the dust when it comes to math apps; what can I personally do to inlude more level-appropriate math practice when utilizing iPod touches or an iPad?
Reflection 7
Virtual reality and computer simulations seem related to, as Strangman and Hall point out, science fiction and "futuristic" type of stuff. My ideas are obviously limited, as I picture virtual reality involving two kids on a couch playing space games with huge helmets and shiny glasses on. Reading the articles made me realize that things have evolved a bit from that.
I read the Baker article first and was skeptical about using this type of technology in my classroom because of the nature of Second Life. It is very "Facebook-like" in terms of the social networking and interaction. Facebook is still banned in most schools for a reason; the regulation of its use is very limited. Honestly, the first time I heard of Second Life was in college when an old boss of mine described how he "met" women on the site and how it was great because they didn't know that he was 56 years old and (his words) unattractive. It creeped me out, so picturing my twelve-year-old students interacting with those types of people on this site makes me a little reluctant to sign up, and that sentiment was mentioned later on in the article. Safety measures and online common sense have to be explicitly taught, especially to younger people. For higher education however, I think this could be quite useful, as described in the article. Online classes do lose the personal touch because not only are people not usually online at the same time, but there is no real conversation that takes place. Discussion boards and email conversations are not the same as a live chat with a visual like avatars. The description was not extremely thorough, so I don't know if there are ways of staying private without having to pay for "land" in the Second Life simulation. If not, I would not use it.
Virtual reality and simulations make much more sense to me as a math teacher. Having a meaningful visual can be of valuable assistance in the learning process. As Strangman and Hall mentioned, students were better at solving geometry problems "that required visualization than were peers taught geometry by verbal explanation" (pg. 4). Even though paper objects are more tangible than images on a computer screen, teachers should consider the learner's background. Much, if not most, of what my seventh graders understand about the world was presented to them through a television, computer screen, laptop, tablet, etc. It makes sense that a 3D simulation on a computer would be recognizable and easily understood by these digital natives. I only wish that there were more general programs that focused on a range of skills rather than individual topics of study.
Questions:
-If a school did subscribe to a program like Second Life, how would a teacher be able to regulate use and keep her students out of harm's way?
-Why does there not seem to be a big gap in science and math achievement between girls and boys when impacted by computer simulations as there is when not?